I said "for all I know, 01 ASC Ronnie carried 2 lbs more of lean mass than in 99." Hence, I don't know. It could be .5 lbs more for all I care. You mistook this for meaning "Ronnie did in fact carry 2 lbs more of lean mass."
But you did say that you believe Ronnie carried more lean mass, and that's the bottom line.
I noticed it says in the Flex review that Ronnie weighed 244 lbs at the 01 ASC. However, I believe this is a misprint. I read in another issue of Flex that Ronnie weighed 247 lbs, and Hulkster claims he saw this number too in a different magazine.
I trust my sources. Until it's proven otherwise, that was not a misprint.
ha ha ha, arguing with you is pointless b/c you have no understanding of anatomy.
Irrelevant, since physiology and not anatomy is relevant here, something you obviously no nothing of.
Do you realize how much 1 lb of lean muscle is? Look at a 16 oz steak. That is 1 lb of muscle. If 01 ASC Ronnie's arms and delts were the same size as 99 with less fat and water, this represents maybe a 2-3 lb increase in lean mass. However, subtract the difference between muscle gained and water lost, and you are left with at most a 1.5 lb difference. Now apply the same calculations to his back and hamstrings. Factor in his downsized quads. I believe you would find that he carried slightly more lean mass at the 01 ASC but not by much.
This is completely irrelevant. If his total muscle mass increased, and yet he came in 10(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) or 13 lbs lighter, then he must, by necessity, have lost 10 or 13 + X lbs of weight from somewhere else, where X represents the number of pounds of muscular bodyweight that he gained. Your hypothesis is bullshit because otherwise his bodyweight would have increased, when in reality it went down. You can't get over this very basic fact. For your hypothesis to be plausible, one of two things would have to be agreed upon:
1.
His bodyweight went up. This is basic physics. Muscle tissue weight more than water, so if you replace the amount of water in a given space with muscle tissue, then it's weight goes up. Now, did Ronnie's weight go up at the 2001 ASC? No, it went down. By over 10 lbs. For this to be true, Ronnie would have to lose even more weight elsewhere. And there's no place to take that weight from.
2.
His quad went down in size. In this case, you'd be demonstrating the possibility that Ronnie had the same arm, delts and chest measurements that he had at the 1999 Olympia, but you'd be simply agreeing with me that his total lean muscle mass went down. So what is it, sport?
Now, if you're arguing that the amount of muscular tissue that Ronnie lost from his quads, in pounds, was greater than the sum of muscular tissue that he gained elsewhere, also in pounds, then I consider your hypothesis plausible. Unfortunately for you, in this case, this means agreeing that Ronnie carried less lean mass at the 2001 ASC than at the 1999 Olympia. You can't get over the bodyweight fact. I actually feel sorry for you, because you're trying to argue yourself out of something that is impossible. Even assuming that he was only 10 lbs lighter at the 2001 ASC than at the 1999 Olympia, the fact the he gained more mass and yet still came in 10 lbs lighter would mean that he lost 11 or 12, or 13 lbs of weight from somewhere else, and it can only possibly be water. I don't think that Ronnie carried one ounce of bodyfat more at the 1999 Olympia than he did at the 2001 ASC, and while his conditioning improved for the latter show, that was basically water and one pound of two of fat. And I'm sorry, but he didn't have 11 or 12 lbs of fat and water to lose.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
